The [Annotated] Climate Speech

[UPDATED 4/17, 7:30 a.m.] Let’s try an experiment. I’d love some help from you in dissecting what President Bush said Wednesday about climate change, United States policy, and international actions. The complete text of his remarks follows, taken from a transcript released by the White House. I’ll insert footnote-style references from specific passages to reader comments as they come in (please specify which paragraph or phrase you’re discussing).

It may get messy, but it could be instructive. I’m going to start the ball rolling with some annotations below in brackets. I’ll be adding more as time permits.

REMARKS BY THE PRESIDENT ON CLIMATE CHANGE

Rose Garden, 2:45 P.M. EDT

THE PRESIDENT: Thank you. Welcome. Thank you all for coming. I particularly want to thank members of my Cabinet for joining me here today in the Rose Garden.

Tomorrow represents — representatives of the world’s major economies will gather in Paris to discuss climate change. Here in Washington, the debate about climate change is intensifying. Today, I’ll share some views on this important issue to advance discussions both at home and abroad. [A. Revkin: Mr. Bush almost always calls climate change an “issue” and not a “problem.” I know about political issues. I know about environmental or energy problems. What is an environmental issue?]

Climate change involves complicated science and generates vigorous debate. Many are concerned about the effect of climate change on our environment. Many are concerned about the effect of climate change policies on our economy. I share these concerns, and I believe they can be sensibly reconciled. [Comment 10, on an advance copy of the speech, is simply hilarious.] [Comment 13 proposes that the president’s concern about human-caused global warming is legitimizing a fiction.]

Over the past seven years, my administration has taken a rational, balanced approach to these serious challenges [Comment 6]. We believe we need to protect our environment. We believe we need to strengthen our energy security [Comment 2]. We believe we need to grow our economy. And we believe the only way to achieve these goals is through continued advances in technology. [Comment 26][AR: Wording like “the only way” is bound to greatly vex the many experts I hear from — Amory B. Lovins comes to mind — who have repeatedly demonstrated how easy it is to make deep cuts in the CO2 emissions from a building or business at a profit. Then there are all those folks who’ve chosen to telecommute, mayors pursuing traffic management, and on and on. Is there no behavior change Mr. Bush feels is worth throwing into the mix along with better solar panels or nuclear plants?] So we’ve pursued a series of policies aimed at encouraging the rise of innovative as well as more cost-effective clean energy technologies that can help America and developing nations reduce greenhouse gases, reduce our dependence on oil, and keep our economies vibrant and strong for decades to come.

I have put our nation on a path to slow, stop, and eventually reverse the growth of our greenhouse gas emissions. In 2002, I announced our first step: to reduce America’s greenhouse gas intensity by 18 percent through 2012. [Comment 5][Comment 33] I’m pleased to say that we remain on track to meet this goal even as our economy has grown 17 percent. [AR: Quite a few analysts have shown pretty convincingly that the reduction in energy and emissions intensity over the last seven years has basically followed an “anyway” path, meaning it was not a function of new policies or leadership or the like. The same goes for some government projections through 2020. Are there conflicting studies?]

As we take these steps here at home, we’re also working internationally on a rational path to addressing global climate change. When I took office seven years ago, we faced a problem. A number of nations around the world were preparing to implement the flawed approach of Kyoto Protocol. In 1997, the United States Senate took a look at the Kyoto approach and passed a resolution opposing this approach by a 95 to nothing vote.

The Kyoto Protocol would have required the United States to drastically reduce greenhouse gas emissions. [Comment 46] The impact of this agreement, however, would have been to limit our economic growth and to shift American jobs to other countries — while allowing major developing nations to increase their emissions. Countries like China and India are experiencing rapid economic growth — and that’s good for their people and it’s good for the world. This also means that they are emitting increasingly large quantities of greenhouse gases — which has consequences for the entire global climate.

So the United States has launched — and the G8 has embraced — a new process that brings together the countries responsible for most of the world’s emissions. We’re working toward a climate agreement that includes the meaningful participation of every major economy — and gives none a free ride. [AR: I keep hearing, again and again, that China simply will not budge from its growth, coal, and emissions trajectories without help — meaning money — from countries, like the United States, that have built their own economies on fossil fuels for a century or two. How does this square wit the no “free ride” approach?] [Comment 17 rebuts aspects of my comment.]

In support of this process, and based on technology advances and strong new policy, it is now time for the U.S. to look beyond 2012 and to take the next step[Comment 6]. We’ve shown that we can slow emissions growth. Today, I’m announcing a new national goal: to stop the growth of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions by 2025.

To reach this goal, we will pursue an economy-wide strategy that builds on the solid foundation that we have in place. As part of this strategy, we worked with Congress to pass energy legislation that specifies a new fuel economy standard of 35 miles per gallon by 2020, and requires fuel producers to supply at least 36 billion gallons of renewable fuel by 2022. [AR: We and others have written reams about the dubious carbon-dioxide benefits of biofuel choices that are available now or in the near term. Why are biofuels included here? What is the anticipated climate benefit of those fuels?] [Comment 8 raises other questions about biofuels.]This should provide an incentive for shifting to a new generation of fuels like cellulosic ethanol that will reduce concerns about food prices and the environment.

We also mandated new objectives for the coming decade to increase the efficiency of lighting and appliances. [Comment 19] We’re helping states achieve their goals for increasing renewable power and building code efficiency by sharing new technologies and providing tax incentives. [AR: My sense is some governors would take issue with this. An awful lot of states have gone to court because the Bush administration is fighting their efforts to curb carbon dioxide emissions. So which is it, helping, hampering?] [Comment 34] We’re working to implement a new international agreement that will accelerate cuts in potent HCFC emissions. Taken together, these landmark actions will prevent billions of metric tons of greenhouse gas emissions from entering the atmosphere.

These objectives are backed by a combination of new market-based regulations, new government incentives, and new funding for technology research. We’ve provided billions of dollars for next generation nuclear energy technologies. Along with the private sector, we’ve invested billions more to research, develop and commercially deploy renewable fuels, hydrogen fuel cells, advanced batteries, and other technologies to enable a new generation of vehicles and more reliable renewable power systems. [Comment 36 from earlier post provides links showing energy-research budget trends.]

In 2009 alone, the government and the private sector plan to dedicate nearly a billion dollars to clean coal research and development. [AR: Clean coal? The administration’s definition, I think, does not include capturing carbon dioxide and storing it. Even if it did, the trajectory of government research on this is in the opposite direction. Am I missing something?] Our incentives for power production from wind and solar energy have helped to more than quadruple its use. We have worked with Congress to make available more than $40 billion in loan guarantees to support investments that will avoid, reduce, or sequester greenhouse gas emissions or air pollutants. And our farmers can now compete for substantial new conservation incentives to restore land and forests in ways that help cut greenhouse gases.

We’re doing a lot to protect this environment. We’ve laid a solid foundation for further progress. But these measures — while these measures will bring us a long way to achieving our new goal, we’ve got to do more in the power generation sector. [Comment 25] To reach our 2025 goal, we’ll need to more rapidly slow the growth of power sector greenhouse gas emissions so they peak within 10 to 15 years, and decline thereafter. [Comment 29] By doing so, we’ll reduce emission levels in the power sector well below where they were projected to be when we first announced our climate strategy in 2002.

There are a number of ways to achieve these reductions, but all responsible approaches depend on accelerating the development and deployment of new technologies.

As we approach this challenge, we face a growing problem here at home. Some courts are taking laws written more than 30 years ago — to primarily address local and regional environmental effects — and applying them to global climate change. The Clean Air Act, the Endangered Species Act, and the National Environmental Policy Act were never meant to regulate global climate. For example, under a Supreme Court decision last year, the Clean Air Act could be applied to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from vehicles. This would automatically trigger regulation under the Clean Air Act of greenhouse gases all across our economy — leading to what Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman John Dingell last week called, “a glorious mess.” [Comment 20] [Comment 23]

If these laws are stretched beyond their original intent, they could override the programs Congress just adopted, and force the government to regulate more than just power plant emissions. They could also force the government to regulate smaller users and producers of energy — from schools and stores to hospitals and apartment buildings. This would make the federal government act like a local planning and zoning board, have crippling effects on our entire economy.

Decisions with such far-reaching impact should not be left to unelected regulators and judges. Such decisions should be opened — debated openly; such decisions should be made by the elected representatives of the people they affect. The American people deserve an honest assessment of the costs, benefits and feasibility of any proposed solution.

This is the approach Congress properly took last year on mandatory policies that will reduce emissions from cars and trucks, and improve the efficiency of lighting and appliances. This year, Congress will soon be considering additional legislation that will affect global climate change. I believe that Congressional debate should be guided by certain core principles and a clear appreciation that there is a wrong way and a right way to approach reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Bad legislation would impose tremendous costs on our economy and on American families without accomplishing the important climate change goals we share.

The wrong way is to raise taxes, duplicate mandates, or demand sudden and drastic emissions cuts that have no chance of being realized and every chance of hurting our economy. The right way is to set realistic goals for reducing emissions consistent with advances in technology, while increasing our energy security and ensuring our economy can continue to prosper and grow.

The wrong way is to sharply increase gasoline prices, home heating bills for American families and the cost of energy for American businesses. [AR: McKinsey, the consulting company, found there are profits to be made in cutting energy useacross the economy. There’ll be costs, too, for sure, in some sectors, but…]

The right way is to adopt policies that spur investment in the new technologies needed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions more cost-effectively in the longer term without placing unreasonable burdens on American consumers and workers in the short term.

The wrong way is to jeopardize our energy and economic security by abandoning nuclear power and our nation’s huge reserves of coal. The right way is to promote more emission-free nuclear power and encourage the investments necessary to produce electricity from coal without releasing carbon into the air. [AR: More on the administration’s faltering Futuregen project is here.]

The wrong way is to unilaterally impose regulatory costs that put American businesses at a disadvantage with their competitors abroad — which would simply drive American jobs overseas and increase emissions there. The right way is to ensure that all major economies are bound to take action and to work cooperatively with our partners for a fair and effective international climate agreement.

The wrong way is to threaten punitive tariffs and protectionist barriers, start a carbon-based global trade war, and to stifle the diffusion of new technologies. [Comment 21] The right way is to work to make advanced technology affordable and available in the developing world — by lowering trade barriers, creating a global free market for clean energy technologies, and enhancing international cooperation and technology investment.

We must all recognize that in the long run, new technologies are the key to addressing climate change. But in the short run, they can be more expensive. And that is why I believe part of any solution means reforming today’s complicated mix of incentives to make the commercialization and use of new, lower emission technologies more competitive. [Comment 21] Today we have different incentives for different technologies — from nuclear power, to clean coal, to wind and solar energy. What we need to do is consolidate them into a single, expanded program with the following features. [Comment 7 broaches the unmentioned issue of eliminating subsidies for fossil fuels. An incentive pulling in the wrong direction?]

First, the incentive should be carbon-weighted to make lower emission power sources less expensive relative to higher emissions sources — and it should take into account our nation’s energy security needs.

Second, the incentive should be technology-neutral because the government should not be picking winners and losers in this emerging market. [Comment 32][AR: One glaring problem is that the government is already picking winners and losers, often based on political geography more than what technologies hold the most promise. As Matt Wald and I wrote last year, just in direct R&D investment, the balance is skewed to coal and far from solar, for example. And this doesn’t count hidden subsidies for oil and coal that many environmental groups and renewable-energy investors decry.]

Third, the incentive should be long-lasting. It should provide a positive and reliable market signal not only for the investment in a technology, but also for the investments in domestic manufacturing capacity and infrastructure that will help lower costs and scale up availability.

Even with strong new incentives, many new technologies face regulatory and political barriers. To pave the way for a new generation of nuclear power plants, we must provide greater certainty on issues from licensing to responsible management of spent fuel. [Comment 9 wonders if this means creating a new uber-agency.] The promise of carbon capture and storage depends on new pipelines and liability rules. Large-scale renewable energy installations are most likely to be built in sparsely populated areas — which will require advanced, interstate transmission systems to deliver this power to major population centers. If we’re serious about confronting climate change, then we have to be serious about addressing these obstacles.

If we fully implement our new strong laws, adhere to the principles that I’ve outlined, and adopt appropriate incentives, we will put America on an ambitious new track for greenhouse gas reductions. The growth in emissions will slow over the next decade, stop by 2025, and begin to reverse thereafter, so long as technology continues to advance.

Our new 2025 goal marks a major step forward in America’s efforts to address climate change. Yet even if we reduced our own emissions to zero tomorrow, we would not make a meaningful dent in solving the problem without concerted action by all major economies. So in connection with the major economies process we launched, we’re urging each country to develop its own national goals and plans to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

Like many other countries, America’s national plan will be a comprehensive blend of market incentives and regulations to reduce emissions by encouraging clean and efficient energy technologies. We’re willing to include this plan in a binding international agreement, so long as our fellow major economies are prepared to include their plans in such an agreement. We recognize that different nations will design different strategies, with goals and policies that reflect their unique energy resources and economic circumstances. But we can only make progress if their plans will make a real difference as well. [AR: Once again, the old Alphonse and Gaston comic routine surfaces: “You first, Sir.” I’m not sure how that stalemate breaks.]

The next step in the major economies process is a meeting this week in Paris — and I want to thank my friend, President Sarkozy, for hosting it. There, representatives of all participating nations will lay the groundwork for a leaders’ meeting in conjunction with the G8 summit in July. Our objective is to come together on a common approach that will contribute to the negotiations under the U.N. Framework Convention of global climate once the Kyoto Protocol expires in 2012. This approach must be environmentally effective and economically sustainable.

To be effective, this approach will — this approach will require commitments by all major economies to slow, stop, and eventually reverse the growth of greenhouse gas emissions. To be economically sustainable, this approach must foster the economic growth necessary to pay for investments in new technology and to raise living standards. We must help countries in the developing world gain access to the technologies, as well as financing that will enable them to take a lower carbon path to economic growth.

And then there will be the major economies leader meeting in July — that’s the one I’ll be going to — where we will seek agreement on a long-term global goal for emissions reductions, as well as an agreement on how national plans will be part of the post-2012 approach. We’ll also seek to increase international cooperation among private firms and governments in key sectors such as power generation, auto manufacturing, renewable fuels, and aluminum and steel.

We will work toward the creation of an international clean technology fund that will help finance low-emissions energy projects in the developing world. We’ll call on all nations to help spark a global clean energy revolution by agreeing immediately to eliminate trade barriers on clean energy goods and services.

The strategy I have laid out today shows faith in the ingenuity and enterprise of the American people — and that’s a resource that will never run out. [AR: This sure sounds like a riff on Al Gore’s line about political will being America’s greatest renewable resource.] I’m confident that with sensible and balanced policies from Washington, American innovators and entrepreneurs will pioneer a new generation of technology that improves our environment, strengthens our economy, and continues to amaze the world.

Thanks for coming. (Applause)

There are more explorations of this sort out in Blogworld. Dave Roberts at Grist has done his own critique of the speech. I’ll be adding more examples as I find them. Please alert us to anything else of this sort out there.

Quite a reasonable speech. I especially like “the right way, the wrong way” part. He is not ambiguous about his position.

Now, I see many of alarmists jump on with the familiar totally baseless “tipping points” drivel. Too bad: with lack of rational thinking nobody actually cares about what fears you have.

This whole global warming circus have one positive effect: more nuclear plants would be built. Some money might be wasted to “alternative energy” research, alas there is no way to make the society 100% optimal.

“We believe we need to strength our energy security” What has Bush done to strengthen that in past 8 years? I understand that we engaged in an energy competition war. But we’ve seen an increase in energy prices, in eight years, which has impacted our economy – so by paragraph three he has already contradicted or confused himself.

Let’s see China’s per capita emissions are around 4 tonnes; the US’s is 20. At the current rate of expansion, which probably cannot sustain itself, China reachs our rate in 10 years. What this fails to take into account is that the per capita needed to stop is 2 tonnes per person.

“In 2002, I announced our first step: to reduce America’s greenhouse gas intensity by 18 percent through 2012. I’m pleased to say that we remain on track to meet this goal even as our economy has grown 17 percent.” Intensity is the key word here. As explained on page 42 of The Rough Guide to Climate Change by Robert Henson, “carbon intensity is a measure of how much fossil fuel it takes to produce a certain amount of economic output.” Henson also points out that “…US cabon intensity dropped from 17.4 % from 1990 to 2000 without any special attempt to reduce it.” As you say this reduction that Bush is so proud of would have happened even if Bush did nothing, which is actually what he did. An 18% decrease in carbon intensity is still an increase in carbon emissions. A carbon dioxide molecule still absorbs infrared-red radiation and increases the earth’s temperature whether it comes from increased ecomomic activity or not.

The President uses the word ‘rational’ more than once to describe his approach, but saying something is “rational” doesn’t make it so. I hope they taught him that at Yale and HBS.

The President also uses the word ‘strong’ to describe his policies. I get the feeling that he calls them “strong” because that allows him to think that they’re strong or to think that other people will believe that the policies are strong.

Overall, I think that George Orwell would have had a great time analyzing the speech.

Also, the President seems to see all of these goals as if they are contradictory. In other words, he seems to feel that we must choose, to a large degree, between transitioning our energy sources OR maintaining the economy. But, is that really so? I don’t think so. Consider, for example, that the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) generates about 60% of its energy via coal-fired power plants and combustion turbines. The coal comes from Tennessee and neighboring states (including some major mountaintop messes). But, what if people currently working in the coal mines and in related processes were given training and jobs making, installing, managing, and maintaining solar panels, wind turbines, and so forth? Can’t we make a smart energy transition in a way that actually creates jobs?? Are we not smart enough to do that? Is our President not smart enough to see the opportunity?

Modern humans need energy. But, if we are smart, we can get it from sources other than hydrocarbons that have been buried for millions of years and that spew carbon dioxide into the atmosphere when used. It seems that the coal companies, the oil companies, and some of the utilities (as well as many politicians) don’t want you to see this distinction. But it’s a VITAL distinction TO see, if you care about the climate and moving forward in effective ways.

(And the media should have pointed out this distinction much more clearly and effectively about a decade ago, which brings me to another point: Although I think it’s very helpful to analyze the President’s speech, and a great idea on Andy’s part, most of us also realize, I hope, that a majority of media coverage regarding global warming could also be analyzed in ways that wouldn’t get very good grades either.)

Right now an estimated $74 billion is estmated energy subsidies with half going to oil and gas. This results in Peabody Coal, the world’s largest coal producer, paying only $1M in taxes in the last two years. I have to ask what are we subsiizing; perhaps we should shift emphasis in our tax policy or put a true market mechanism in place by putting a tax neutral carbon tax in place (as the CBO recommends), or at least one that auctions the rights off in a Cap and Trade system that seems to be the only politically viable solution.

Does this mean a new agency and are we gutting EPA? I prefer the devil i know than the devil i don’t. Also, all of his proposals will cost money through hidden taxes (this has to be paid for somehow) rather unleashing the technology and CONSERVATION by 300m citizens thru a revenue neutral carbon tax.

A well-placed friend in DC just sent me what she claims was an advance copy of his remarks today – seems legit:

– “That’s why I’m calling on the Congress to fully fund my Administration’s Future Gen program to build clean coal power plants that will reduce our competitivity with foreign sources of oil and increase our commitment to carbon emissions.”

– “Congress needs to fully permit and fund the development of our oil reserves on the outer continental shelf. These reserves can be developed with clean, cutting edge technologies with no environmental damage, because nobody lives in the ocean.”

– “We have got to develop carbon capture and rendition technologies so we can keep the carbon locked up before it attacks America again.”

– “My administration believes in the promise of solar, I believe in the sun. In fact, top scientists with the Department of Energy have evidence that the sun comes up every single day, rain or shine. We need to study this and, if confirmed, Congress should set aside significant funding to confirm these studies.”

– “Finally, America can not achieve its energy and climate goals without learning how to pronounce the word ‘nukular.’ Tonight, I am announcing a new initiative through the U.S. Department of Education to train America’s children in the appropriate spelling and diction of nukular technologies. I am committing $14 trillion dollars to this program, which is about what it would cost to build two or three nukular power plants by the year 2075 – enough to dramatically reduce our discussion of carbon dioxide emission reductions while accelerating the deployment of kerosene lanterns, candles and dung fires. Together, we can take America back to the future, which, with my commitment, looks a lot like the past we all miss so dearly. Thank you and God Bless.”

I agree that this is too important to be left to an unelected official; in fact i believe it is too important to be left to an elected official. Therefore i believe all carbon offsets or allowances should be issued to the american people so that they can decide what is best for each household — they can sell their shares when the market is right or not. Not year, you do the same, just smaller share values, and redo the process. That would be a perfect democratic, market-based system.

“Climate Change: The president’s plan to reduce carbon emissions legitimizes the environmentalist agenda of destroying the earth in order to save it. At least one scientist says we need more CO2 emissions, not less.

It must have seemed a good idea at the time, this attempt to blunt the global warming agenda and head off a regulatory train wreck. But President Bush’s announcement Wednesday of a plan to halt growth in U.S. greenhouse gas emissions by 2025, while not embracing all the enviro groups want, legitimizes their argument that global warming is caused by humans and an imminent threat to mankind.

As Christopher Horner, author of “The Politically Incorrect Guide to Global Warming,” says: “All this accomplished was to legitimize the agenda, wrench the political center of the issue far to the left, and leave some very good men and women out there hanging.”

It also comes at a time when an increasing number of scientists are giving warming theories a cold shoulder.

Timothy Patterson, professor of geology and director of the Ottawa-Carleton Geoscience Centre of Canada’s Carleton University, says that “CO2 variations show little correlation with our planet’s climate on long, medium and even short-time scales.” “

Just a quick note. On May 10, the world population, [drum roll — maybe the Pope is listening too, in all due respect, sir, condoms are unholy? “Who” told you that? Jesus never mentioned condoms in any of his spiels…], the world population will reach — 6,666,666,666.

And no, the number is NOT the mark of the Beast, whoever thought up that wacko urban legend. It is the mark of the current world population, which will hit 9,999,999,999 in about 50 more years.

So: would *YOU* like to be included on the “GLOBAL ROLL CALL” of 6.7 billion people currently being canvassed worldwide? Anonymous posts are welcome, and a few have already come in, good ones, read the comments section first. The roll call initiative is a PR wake up call to prod people into re-thinking how many people the Earth can carry well:

If you would like to sign up, anonymous posts are okay, on the Global Roll Call initiative, which is trying to compile the names of all 6,666,666,666 people on Earth now at the current time, please visit the website here and sign in:

Some very moving comments have already been logged in. Good look at the comments section. It’s a PR initiative to prod people to re-think how many people the Earth can carry well. Now and in the future, when stats will reach 9,999,999,999.

Any prosperity that China, India and other developing countries have today is entirely due to technological innovations and trade opportunities created by the wealthy economies. This has allowed these countries to ‘leap frog’ certain development stages and advance further, faster than they would have been able to do otherwise.

The idea the west should pay China and India to reduce is emissions is absurd.

Incidentally, people who make the ‘we gotta pay China to clean up’ argument are implicitly acknowledging that AGW is not much of a concern. If AGW is was really the catastrophe that it is made out to be then there would be no discussion of breaks for the largest emitters.

It is also worth nothing that China and India have good scientists too. If their scientists don’t think the problem is serious to justify action on their part unless they are paid to do then that is yet another sign that the AGW scare is being grossly exaggerated.

Re: The Global Roll Call, above: One Internet surfer listed her name and her husband and two children with this note:

“We are so honored to place our names on your Glboal Roll Call list.
We love planet Earth, and this is a magical way to bring awareness.
Thank you for including us in your project.
Here is our household:

We have mandated new standards to increase the efficiency of lighting and appliances? Are you kidding? One of the first things he did in office was to roll back the standards that Clinton imposed. Then he did absolutely nothing for more than 6 years until he finally passed something–and it requires a raising of standards to levels that are lower than what lighting and appliances achieve now anyway.

Upon a first read this seems like a major smokescreen…..he wants to eliminate existing laws (Clean Air, Clean Water, etc) and replace them with a loosely regulated market based system of controls. Regulations are bad, mandates are bad, don’t hurt the economy.

There is no question that technology will spur this movement forward. But we need appropriate mandates and regulations to help make this happen. And incentives that make sense (not write offs for large SUVs) and are permanent (not eliminated like many of the solar credits)

And by the way the Clean Air Act should regulate greenhouse gas emissions from cars and the only reason it is seen as a “glorious mess” by Dingell is because he is from Michigan.

Where did that come from? But now that President Bush mentions it, tying tariffs to imports from nations related to their carbon emissions sounds like an excellent idea. If we do that we’ll reduce total world emissions through natural market forces, whatever we end up doing in our own country. I’m on board, and I’m sure we can get a lot more support for this idea, especially with the president opposed!

I’m also intrigued by the proposal aimed at “reforming today’s complicated mix of incentives to make the commercialization and use of new, lower emission technologies more competitive.”

The president’s incentive proposal sounds like he’s talking about something like the wind “production tax credit”, applied more universally. In principle that sounds like a good idea, but of course there are a lot of details to work out. Also, economically this sounds like it would have exactly the same effect as a carbon tax, except that money is flowing out of the government in incentive payments, instead of into the government in taxes.

But where would that magical incentive money come from? Some sort of additional general tax on the economy as a whole, which would obviously to some degree cancel out the incentives, and add to the cost of un-incentivized power (i.e. carbon-emitting power, i.e. a tax on carbon).

On it’s face of course this is just another “borrow-and-spend” idea, characteristic of recent Republican ideology. But whether we pay now, or we pay later, we’re going to end up paying for those incentives somehow…

I remember about 10 years ago when he was governor of Texas when he fought tooth and nail to make sure that the old power plants in Texas that were built during or directly after World War II had no pollution controls because they should be “Grandfathered In” (built before pollution control requirements.) Here is a politician that could have made a huge diffence in pollution in this country and chose not to.

What's Next

About

By 2050 or so, the human population is expected to pass nine billion. Those billions will be seeking food, water and other resources on a planet where humans are already shaping climate and the web of life. Dot Earth was created by Andrew Revkin in October 2007 -- in part with support from a John Simon Guggenheim Fellowship -- to explore ways to balance human needs and the planet's limits.